Posted by Alex on Thursday, January 3rd, 2008

Posted by Alex

In November 2005, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton warned the Syrians "What we want are not speeches or words," . "We want cooperation, full and complete, and immediate". The same week, French President Jacques Chirac added "It is not conceivable, admissible, acceptable for the international community … that Syria refuses to cooperate," … Chirac warned of sanctions if al-Assad "persists in not wanting to listen or understand". The United States described Assad's speech that month as "appalling".

The past few days we found out that the civilized world has given up on Syria again, long time ago in the case of President Bush, more recently in the case of President Sarkozy who earlier gave Damascus a public deadline (until Saturday) to interfere in an effective way in Lebanon. Syria missed the deadline and failed to interfere… or "help" as they call the desired Syrian interference lately. Syria refused to (failed to) "help"… not to be confused with American/French/European/Moderate Arab demands last few years for Syria to stay away completely from Lebanon.

In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on the Near East on November 8, 2007, David Welch explained how his administration is

"working with our partners in Europe and in the Middle East to coordinate efforts so as to maximize effectiveness, especially in the run-up to Lebanon's elections. As an example of this coordination, Secretary Rice led a meeting on the margins of last week's Expanded Neighbors Conference in Istanbul with the Foreign Ministers of France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan, as well as the Secretary General of the Arab League to discuss the upcoming elections in Lebanon. We expect to consult more closely with our partners in the region on this subject in the coming weeks"

Syria's foreign minister who was in Istanbul that day was not invited. Apparently his presence was not as necessary to "maximize effectiveness" as that of the UAE's foreign minister.

Yet it was Syria, and not Saudi Arabia or Egypt (or the UAE) that disappointed the French and Americans in its failure to enable them to announce that they (The French and the Americans) succeeded in making the Lebanese democratic presidential elections a success.

Since we did not witness any new assassination of anti Syria Lebanese politicians for many months (El-Hajj was pro Syria) and since Syria got credited more than once by American generals in Iraq for its seemingly effective efforts in helping calm the violence in Iraq, Syria's evilness is not the issue these days. The apparent main (new for 2008) reason why the two presidents gave up on Syria seems to be related to their impression that Bashar is not very honest or trustworthy… he promises things that he does not deliver.

You can't trust the Syrians. Sarkozy has been dealing with Assad (by phone) for about a month now. Assad had a whole month to deliver a solution in Lebanon. He did not. He lost the confidence of the civilized world (Which includes Saudi Arabia by the way).

No one put any such deadlines on the numerous Saudi, Egyptian, French, American, Arab League, Italian, Spanish, or Russian initiatives that were promising to help Lebanon. Since Syria was ordered out of Lebanon in 2005, the other countries had sufficient time (and influence) to demonstrate, collectively, that they can replace Syria in dealing with Lebanon's considerable challenges and difficulties. They did not. Instead, they came back to Syria in the last minute to ask for a quick solution to all the mess they created the past two years. A mess that is not only limited to Lebanon. Syria was expected to deliver a solution in Lebanon without the luxury of being able to even have an active direct discussion with Lebanon's new management: The United States and Saudi Arabia.

Two years ago, the Syrian President offended and outraged many people when he called Lebanese Prime minister Fouad Seniora "abdon moussayar li-abden moussayar" (led slave of a led slave). He was referring to his impression of Seniora's place in the real hierarchy of Lebanese politics: Seniora's boss is young billionaire Saad Hariri (who picked Seniora for the job), Hariri's boss is Saudi King Abdullah.

In case any reader is still saddened by Bashar's unfair characterization of the leader of the truly independent and democratic Lebanese M14 government, here is what Mr. Fouad Seniora, President Bush's one and only acceptable Lebanese, wrote in Saudi Newspaper Asharq al-Awsat last August:

Translation: "As for King Abdullah Ben Abd alaziz (King of Saudi Arabia), the grand human being, the grand leader, the noble knight, may god preserve his friendliness and prolong his rule, and allow us to continue enjoying his presence and his work, reward him for all that he provided and participated in, reward him for his struggle and hard work for the success and progress of the kingdom … citadel of all Arabs and Muslims, and his struggle for the benefit of the Arab world and for peace and freedom and Arabism and independence and stability of Lebanon's democratic system and its successful coexistence."

Given how highly Mr. Seniora thinks of the Saudi King and his indispensable role in Lebanon (and the whole universe actually), wouldn't it be fair to not expect much from the Syrians given that the Saudi King can not even receive a phone call from their President? Where is the hard working Saudi King when you need him?

"This week, a story in the Kuwaiti daily As-Siyassah quoted a Lebanese diplomat in Cairo as saying the Saudis believe Syria has sponsored anti-regime Salafists in the kingdom itself. As-Siyassah is close to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and no Lebanese diplomat would have made such a charge on the record without getting a Saudi green light to do so."

Michael Young, opinion editor of the Lebanese Daily Star, is one of the more determined Syrian regime fighters in the media. In this opinion piece he is concluding that "Damascus may have just lost the Arabs". And he is quoting the Kuwaiti daily As-Siyassah.

The amazing As-Siyassah … the Kuwaiti newspaper "close to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia".

Few month ago, after the neocons and their friends in Israel started to "leak" on a daily basis stories to Murdoch-owned media (the London Times, the WSJ …) that Israel hit a Syrian/Korean nuclear reactor during its mysterious and "top secret" mission over the Euphrates, I received a phone call from an Israeli journalist who told me: "My editor just informed me that while researching the subject he uncovered a year-old story published in Kuwait's As-Siyassah newspaper in which they reported that Syria was already working with North Korea on a nuclear reactor!". The Israeli newspaper was about to publish this shocking discovery as its main headline story.

I told my Israeli friend that I will email him something that will make his editor forget about this story.

Since we just switched to 2008, this is a good time for me to share with you some of my collection of the most honest anti-Syrian-regime news and analysis that I have been saving over the past few years.

The sources are: Saudi owned media, Lebanese March 14th media and blogs, "Syrian oppositions" sites and blogs… some independent and many Neocon/Saudi financed, supported or promoted.

But most of these creative stories started from the Kuwaiti As-Siyassah … the newspaper "close to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia" newspaper. The stories are hilarious. But at from 2004 until today many Syrian regime adversaries (journalists, politicians, readers …) were quoting them and cross referencing them as if they are facts. If you argued with any regime opponent on any blog you probably noticed that these stories were quite successful in convincing many people that the regime is about to fall .. that Mehlis got the perfect smoking gun … that Syria, Iran, hizbollah, Bashar, the Alawite army officers are all ready to stab each other in the back out of their desperation.

I wish President Bush can read these examples of all the honesty, productivity, objectivity, reliability, independence, and professionalism of his favorite side in the Middle East… then to remind us again why he is fed up with the Syrian regime.

Bashar, who is suffering from grave sickness (both physically and mentally) and can not sleep at night, was very worried that Khaddam is becoming too powerful and that the Syrian people in all the mosques are getting restless … therefore, he rushed to buy expensive gifts to the generals in charge of each of the divisions of the Syrian army … Bashar bought each one of them a Mercedes and gave each one $100,000 as a bonus for their loyalty… and for the Eid! (which Bashar never did before he got this scared)

Former Syrian Chief of Staff Hikmat Shihabi who knows everything about the Syrian army is now working with the Americans to help them overthrow Bashar through a swift American military operation … it is practically a done deal.

Basically … Assad and his other regime thugs panicked when they realized that Hariri had a recording pen when he met Assad and that pen has a recording of Assad's voice telling Hariri that he will kill him. Assad's panicky reaction was to meet with Lebanon's Berri and Nasrallah to tell them that they need to help him escape the Mehlis investigation by "setting Lebanon on fire"

Alawite people met Bashar (many on their wheelchairs) to beg him to give his brother and brother in law to the Mehlis investigation to save the Alawite people. But Bashar told Hosni Mubarak that his sister Bushra (Asef Shawkat's wife) did not allow him to do so … and what she decides is final as far as Bashar is concerned… even if it meant the destruction of Syria.

After he threw all his weight towards the Iranians, Bashar (like a typical child) hesitated. After he sold Syria to the Shiites thinking that Iran will save his neck, he started to think … then he got arrogant … then when he realized that Iran itself is about to be threatened by the Americans, Bashar realized that Iran is about to sell Syria and Hizbollah to the Americans … so he decided to switch to America.

Comments (17)

I picked up this London Telegraph article from Global Security Newswire. Smuggling radioactive materials out of Russia is far greater enterprise than most had believed. Could there be a connection with the facilty at Dayr az Zawr? Previously I had assumed the potential source for uranium or ractoactive material was Iran, North Korea or the Pakistani smuggling ring. Maybe the Pakistanis are now getting their supplies from Russia? But who are the buyers?

Russia Stops 120 Nuclear Smuggling Attempts in 2007

Russian customs officials last year blocked more than 120 attempts to move “highly radioactive” material out of the nation, the London Telegraph reported (see GSN, Oct. 25, 2006).

Officials also found 722 separate incidents in which such material was illicitly brought into Russia, Moscow said.

The announcement could heighten fears regarding the possible number of successful nuclear smuggling attempts as well as Russia’s failure to prevent smugglers from acquiring highly radioactive materials that could be used in radiological “dirty bombs,” the Telegraph said (Will Stewart, London Telegraph, Jan. 2).

Alex,
You forgot to include one of those well-timed Osama-type videos in your propaganda link line-up. There must be at least one floating out there somewhere… Would FOX news have alien footage of nuclear fissile material abducted from Russia, & delivered to Deir Ez Zor? That would be a smoking gun, for sure!

To be fair, you should also publish a list of all the false stories brought forward by Syrian newspapers.

I remember reading the Syrian Times the day after the huge March 14 demonstration in Beirut. interesting enough, the newspaper had a picture of a demonstration so I bought it to see what it wrote about the demo. Turned out to be a picture of a demonstration to thank the great Syrian leader Assad. The location of the demo: Homs! (i kid you not)

I can’t do the other list … The last time I read a Syrian newspaper was in 1980 I think

: )

Unlike the known Syrian government newspapers, the problem with the others I listed is that in Washington and Paris, there are journalists and analysts and even some government officials who trust them, read them, and even base their policies on what they read.

When Asharq Alawsat made up a story about Syria working on its Iranian financed nuclear program, a couple of months later we had a neocon supported Israeli “mission” to take out Syria’s alleged nuclear facilities… which gave them more ideas on how to create “Syria is evil” momentum.

You know that opinion pieces in Asharq Alawsat were used in Washington to gather support for, and facilitate approval for the Iraq war … those opinion pieces were telling us that Iraqis will welcome American soldiers with flowers and roses.

If Syrian newspapers wrote it, no one reads them. The damage comes from the Mamoun Fandis and Michael young inventions and opinions.

Alex, my friend,
Sometimes things seem clearer from a distance…like a distance of about 6,000 km. The sense I get from this post is that many in Syria once again feel beseiged….and agin because, I submit, from its own conduct.
Consider just two observations:

– Assad calling Prime Minister Seniora ‘a led slave of a led slave’ is hardly the way to establish a relationship to Syria’s benefit with its neighbor or its fellow Arab countries. Where is the wisdom? What does Assad gain from that?

– You noticed that at the Istanbul Conference the Syrian Ambassador was left out of a meeting with middle east ambassadors to discuss progressing the Lebanese election. One does not get invited to a meeting if one has nothing to contribute and declaring Syria’s intransigence means Syria had nothing to contribute to that meeting. That’s a no brainer. I can think of many legitimate benefits Syria can gain by normalizing Lebanon, so what does Syria have to gain by manintaining the impass in Lebanon?

It does not further healthy discussion by debating the series of grips in this article. What is more interesting is what is Syria going to do now? Perhaps you could inform us.

You already decided that the egg always comes before the chicken, right?

By the time Bashar described Seniora as a slave to the Saudis, both Seniora and the Saudis already demonstrated beyond any doubt that they are working with Washington to remove Bashar.

Bashar spoke at the end of 2005 … a lot happened before he finally spoke.

And what he said was true wasn’t it? .. the Saudis appointed their man as head of Lebanon’s government. And you read how he worships the Saudi king … it s one thing to expect Syria to respect Lebanese sovereignty (which it should) but it is another to allow a far country (the Saudis) to buy/control Lebanon .. which was part of Syria for a thousand years… look at the natural map my friend.

As for the Istanbul conference and Syria’s lack of contribution … no problem. I am not complaining. But when Sarkozy and Bush come back this week telling us that they are soooo disappointed that Syria did not solve their Lebanon problems then they can’t have it both ways .. if Syria is as useless as you suggested (not to deserve to be in the Istanbul meeting) then why did they have the unrealistically high expectations a month later? … why didn’t they get disappointed with the countries they met with in Istanbul?

ALEX-
I just do not think name calling creates friendly relations with leaders of other countries. That’s all.
Thank you for pointing out the chicken and egg problem. I accept your description. But, is it not an excellent example of the futility of
‘my conduct is the other guy’s fault,’ which maybe found world wide but seems to be very popular in the middle east? I think the mother of all excuses is Adam’s reply to God when asked why he ate from the apple which was ‘she made me do it.’
2 questions:
1. Are we really claiming Assad had no responsibility for his own words?
2. How do we break through this constant circularity of blaming that gets us no where?
And thank you for your comments on the Instanbul meeting. Maybe I got my timing off. Regards.

I did not like Assad’s words for Seniora by the way. But I liked the rest of his speech.

Even if he did not say a thing about Seniora, it would not have made a difference … at that point, Syrians (including me) were asking for Assad to reply to all the madness from Lebanon. There were daily attacks .. daily lies … like the ones I linked in this post … I knew they were all lies. Assad was totally quiet for many months. We wanted him to come out and say something.

the issue is not, and did not start with, what Bashar said … it is about Saudi Arabia taking over management of Lebanon and Syria later … the result of Prince Bandar’s “strategizing” with Mr. Cheney.

Let me give you an example of timing and of irrelevance of words.

Walid Jumblatt from the M14 group in Lebanon expressed his disappointment at Assad for calling Arab leaders “half men” in another speech in 2006.

Guess who first used the same expression “ansaf alrijal” a year of two before… The gentleman was defending the strategic Lebanese Syrian Iranian coalition at the time.

Blaming is not a big problem … King Hussein tried to assassinate Hafez Assad, Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein … and they all talked to eah other eventually.

Alex, now you have me confused:
“King Hussein tried to assassinate Hafez Assad, Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein … and they all talked to eah other eventually.”
Is this true ? If so, I guess I am not only naive, but mine is the mother of all “naivetés.”

Secondly, I don’t understand your accusation that Siniora was “appointed” by the KSA. Wasn’t Siniora asked by Lahoud to form a Government that won Confidence in the Lebanese parliament ?? How can such a democratic process be the result of an “appointment” by the King ??

Now, having Lahoud’s term extended by sheer threats to parliamentarians through the Syrian secret service (a very well known and acknowledged fact), now that means Lahoud’s second term was an “appointment” by Assad. A step that degenerated into assassinating Hariri Sr. I don’t get the KSA argument with Siniora.

Finally, on the chicken-and-egg cycle, given the full conviction the Lebanese had (and still have) of the culpability of the Syrian regime in the assassination of Hariri, regardless of whatever other good the Syrian presence may have brought to Lebanon (if indeed there was such good), isn’t it normal for the Lebanese to ask for justice and indicate their beliefs and suspicions? Instead of countering with facts and claims of innocence, we get the name calling of Siniora. Now, did Siniora use name-calling of Assad first ? does he do it now ? has he ever done it? please find and share the quote. I stand by my objective assessment of the superior ability, decency, and statesmanship of Siniora. I have absolutely no link to him. I’m honestly judging what comes out of the news. That’s how I see it.

1) As I said, I did not like Bashar’s verbal attack on Seniora. But I liked and supported everything else in his speech.

I find Seniora much more decent than most of the politicians I don’t like in Lebanon. But please forget the formalities about his appointment, you know that his name was picked by the Saudis and by Saad Hariri… his quote in Asharq Awsat is more than clear about his loyalty.

But again .. he is not a bad man. I would not attack him personally.

2) King Hussein supported the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in their 3 year campaign to overthrow Hafez Assad. June 26 1980 they tried to assassinate him .. machine gun and two hand grenades. Few years later King Hussein came to Damascus and apologized to Hafez for everything … that’s it. He was not the only one behind trying to get rid of Hafez … Saddam Hussein was also a supporter, and many Saudis and other rich Arabs. Assad’s siding with the Christians of Lebanon against the Muslim side was one of the main reasons.

3) Lahoud was obviously appointed by Syria .. the same way Seniora was appointed by KSA … I am against both forms of Lebanese political systems. Hopefully we will see a truly independent Lebanon after all this mess .. one day.

As for the Lebanese KNOWING that Syria killed Hariri and demanding justice … I hope all the lies I linked to can at least give you a little bit of doubt about how you can be manipulated to form the impression they want you to form.

This is a much needed analysis of the valses that are taking place now in the US diplomacy toward Syria and the ME in general. But I remind you that reading the folowing press review from Josh Landis some time ago:http://joshualandis.com/blog/?p=528
it appeared to me that at a certain point Muallem was playing the game of Bush and Sarkozy. I thought that this was nonsense or at least not a serious attitude from Muallem. I think Syria must show its firmness in the absence of any solid direction to US policy in the region or to any solid proposal, whatever the direction of its foreign policy. And up to now, showing a willingmess to be flexible on completely non serious ground makes Syria accomplice in the blame game.
This was my reaction to Muallem’s valse with Bush and Sarkozy:http://lespolitiques.blogspot.com/2007/12/lebanon-and-puppeteers.html#links

I wouldn’t be able to come up with a specific measure of the relative weight of Mouallem compared to Sarkozy and Bush.

You probably agree that after 2005, the strength and significance of Syria’s role in Lebanon is not a constant. Part of it is a constant that will never change … History and Geography. But the Syrian army is out, many Lebanese politicians and leaders do not want to be seen contacting their Syrian allies because it is still a sensitive issue in Lebanon (to be called an ally of Syria).

I think I agree that Syria will not want to interfere at this point in Lebanon, but I don’t agree that they can not do a thing.

I think Nasrallh put it perfectly accurately in his interview this week on NBN:

Syria can not put pressure on us and force us to accept solutions that are not in our interests, but Syria as a friend could have asked us for a favor, since we owe them a lot.

I am not saying Syria is no longer a player. However any role it might play, it cannot play it on its own, and needs to cautioned by imperial powers acting in the region. But imperial powers are at the same time saying one thing and doing another toward Syria and Lebanon. The gap is huge. Anyone who might be tempted to fill it as in classical diplomacy might fall in it…

That’s correct. Syria can only influence (and to variable degrees) half the Lebanese … the other half are influenceable by no one (those who hate all politics by now) or by a combination of the United States, France, and Saudi Arabia.